MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976245710 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2005.12.1083

The Statistical Analysis of Spatially Clustered Genes under the Maximum Gap Criterion

2005· article· en· W1976245710 on OpenAlexafffund
Rose Hoberman, David Sankoff, Dannie Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsPairwise comparisonGenomeComparative genomicsComputational biologyIdentification (biology)GenomicsBiologySet (abstract data type)Statistical modelCluster (spacecraft)Statistical analysisGeneGeneticsComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical validation of gene clusters is imperative for many important applications in comparative genomics which depend on the identification of genomic regions that are historically and/or functionally related. We develop the first rigorous statistical treatment of max-gap clusters, a cluster definition frequently used in empirical studies. We present exact expressions for the probability of observing an individual cluster of a set of marked genes in one genome, as well as upper and lower bounds on the probability of observing a cluster of h homologs in a pairwise whole-genome comparison. We demonstrate the utility of our approach by applying it to a whole-genome comparison of E. coli and B. subtilis. Code for statistical tests is available at.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207